Indian Journal of History of Science, 19 (3) :201—214 (1984) JEAN LE ROND D'ALEMBERT 1717-1783 V_V. RAMAN Department of Physics and Humanities Rochester Institute of Technology ! Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester Y. 14623 (Received I0 October 1983) INTRODUCTION The 17th century was described by A. N. Whitehead as the century whose genius nourished the modern mind with a wealth of ideas. More realistically than Pascal who suggested that hurnan history would have meandered along a different course had Cleopatra's nose been a trifle shorter’, Whitehead pointed out that the visage of Western civilization would have been altogether different if Galileo and Newton had not been born. Succeeding generations “have been living upon the accumulated capital of ideas provided for them by the genius of the seventeenth century”, he wrotc. A crucial expression of that genius lay in the discovery that a quantitative and mathematical description of physical processes is perhaps the most fruitful way of interpreting the world. The medieval philosopher Roger Bacon had already described mathematics as “the alphabet of atl philosophy’, Others before and after him hed expressed similar insights, But it was only in the course of the 17th century that the alphabet came to be used effectively. More than another century had to pass before Fourier’s “mathematical poem” could be composed. {1 is a long way from w, b.c to the masterpieces of fiterature. So it has been with the sole of mathematics in physics also. The esoteric framework of current physics, using abstract spaces and group theoretic formalisms, may well be compared to surrealist poetry and other creative experiments in the literary world, The centuries of Galileo and Newton recognized, initialed, and put to practical use many major mathematical techniques: analytical geometry, the calculus, and the theory of probability, to name onty the most important of them all. But i was left to the 18th century to put on a firmer footing what is now called mathematical Physics. The scientific firmament of the 18th century is also studded with stars of the first magnitude, ac numerous and productive as of the century preceding, though their work was not as revolutionary in its break with the past.202 Vv. ¥. RAMAN Of the many who hold a just place in the initial history of mathematical physics during the 18:h century, three names stand out above all others: Leonhard Euler, Daniel Bernoulli, and Jean fe Rond D’Alembert. These three men sowed the seeds of what was to become one of the finest occupations of the human mind: the formulation and investigation of physical laws and processes in essentially mathematical terms. While the 17th century used mathematics as a valuable tool in the description of nature, mathematical physics practically revels in mathematical expressions and their consequences. D’Alemberl, Bernoulli, and Euler often, and inevitably, attacked similar problems and one another during their long years of productivity. They interacted with one another. both directly and indirectly, while contributing to the naturing of mathematical physics. Each had his own temper and charm. Historians of that delightful period have defended one against che other, sometimes exugeerating the impottance of one, sometimes belittling the role of another.® 1983 is the 200 anniversary of D’Alembert’s death. We will discuss in this paper the role of D’Alembert in the histary of scientific ideas. THE BACKGROUND: During the first decades of the 18th century Newtonian gravitation had not yet been universally accepted in Europe where the vortices of Descartes were still \ery auch in vogue.* Similarly, the wave theory of light, because of its Continental origins, could not compete successfully in England with Newton’s light corpuscles. Scientific research was carried oui principally in various academies, of which the most important were the ones in London, Paris, Berlin, and St. Petersburg. In parti- cular, Frederick U of Prussia and Catherine of Russia were both patrons of the arts and the seiences, took great interest in their respective academies, and encouraged scholars and scientists without regard to their national origin. Paris was the intellectual capital of Europe, The salons of the great city attracted scholars, thinkers, and scientists who discussed everything from physics and philo- sophy to the theater and court gossip, exchanging ideas and quips in the process, The fine tadies who organized the parties were quite knowledgeable also, and they did not always subject themselves to the conventional codes of chastity. Scientific academies challenged investigators to enter prize-winning competitions by submitting essays on proposed topics. Practising scientists wrote texts with historical introductions, and were generous in giving credit to themselves. Scientists in their correspondence were as bitter and sarcastic about others in the field as they often are in our own times. it was not yet the age of specialists, so that most scientific investigators wrote on more than one narrow field of research, often going even beyond scientific themes.JEAN LE ROND D’ALEMBERT 1717-1783 203 This was the setting in which D’Alembert, Euler, and Bernoulli worked. To students and teachers of physics these names simply recall principles, equations, or integrals. But once these were men in flesh and bieod, arguing, fighting, and creating. D'ALEMBERT’S EARLY LIFE Claudine Alexandrine de Tencin had spent most of her youthful years as a nun, but she began to feel in her carly thirties that perhaps fife could offer her more exciting adventures, And so, by the time she was 32 she escaped from her convent, determined to make good for the years she had spent in spiritual spinster- hood. In Jess than a year she found refuge in the arms of an artillery officer. Their mutual affection continued for some years. And before they could agree on settling down as man and wife, the ex-nun discovered she was expecting the Chevalier Des- touches’ child. But whea she was ready to announce this to the gentleman he had left town, perhaps unintentionally, ‘When the baby arrived on November 17, 1717—it was a boy—the Jonely mother left it on the steps of the Church of St. Jean le Rond, perhaps out of fear of being forced back into a life of chastity by a punitive society for becoming an unwed mother, The screaming infant was picked up by an officer of the jaw, and entrusted to an orphanage. The boy was named after the Church as Jean Je Rond. When the father returned to Paris, he heard about the child, took st from the orphanage, and gave it to a certain Madame Rousseau {no relative of the great philosopher). She in turn named the child E’Alemberg (with a ‘g"). She and her husband turned out to be very affectionate foster parents.? Jean is said to have displayed a high degree of intelligence from an carly age. His father paid for his education. His teachers encouraged him to religious studies; but he pursued Jaw, then medicine, and soon pave up both to turn his attention to mathematics which interested him most. He studied this subject mostly by him- self, and in his readings spoited an error in a classic text on the celculus, which had been authored by a certain Charles Reynau.’ What was impressive about this was that the book had been in circulation for over three decades, and the error had not caught anybody's attention, In fact, D’Alembert discovered the mistake in the second edition of the book. D‘Alembert brought this to the attention of the learned workd in 1739 through a short paper which was presented to the Academy of Sciences by Clairault. He was not yet 22 years old. Clairault was very impressed, and spoke highly of the young man.! Thus did D’Alembert make his presence felt in the scientific community: by pointing out an error in another author’s wosk. In retrospect, this was symbolic if not significant, for it revealed his critical mind and augured the polemical nature of a good deal of his later work, But this was soon followed by a number of other204 v. ¥. RAMAN papers, These dealt with differential equations and theoretical mechanics. This was in the spirit of the age: an interest not only in mathematics, but also in its applications. MECHANICS In [743 D’Alembert published his Treatise on Dynamics'* whose aim, he declared, was to reduce “to the smallest possible number the laws of equilibrium and of motion of solid bodies”. The three laws he stated in this work were the jaw of intertia, the law of parallelogram of motion, and the taw of momentum conservation in collisions. In this treatise he formulated a method by which these laws could be applied to the solution of specific problems. The method consisted in regarding any motion as being made up of a natural intertial motion of which a Part may huve been destroyed as a result of external constraints. The motion that is thus destroyed is now treated in terms of a fictional agent or a constraining body. This approach, which Lagrange was to describe many years later as one that reduced dynamics back to statics, came to be known as D’Alembert’s principle. In the course of the 17th century the notion of force began to take on a quantitative aspect. Even though physics texts define and explore this concep? neatly and with logical consistency, recalling the names of Galileo and Newton as the originators of it ail, a great deal of confusion and controversy surrounded the idea of force during those early years of the modern scientific quest.1) Galileo, for example, sometimes regarded force as being proportional ta the velocity af a body, and sometimes as, to the square of the velocity. Descartes thought that the correct measure of force should be my, whereas Leibniz argued that it must be mv*. Newton wrote down in a notebook in 1664: “....it appears how & why amongst bodys moved some require a more potent or efficacious cause others a lesse to hinder ot helpe their velocity. And ye power of this cause is usually called a force.” And in the Principia he said: “The alteration of motion is ever proportional to ye force by weh it is altered.” Indeed Newton used the word force in the sense in which we use the word impulse.? There was also discussion about whether force is to be taken as a cause or as an effect. D’Alembert made a detailed analysis of the idea of force in the introduction to his treatise, noting at the outset that there was as yet to clearly defined meaning of the term. And he did not want to enter into any controversy on this important question. He aiso remarked in this context that since all that one observed in any motion was displacement in space in a time interval, this ought to be the only fact from which the principles of mechanics should be deduced. He would talk of the observed motion, not of the causes motrices. He would avoid concepts like forces inherent to moving bodies which were obscure metaphysical entities. This brings to mind Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics,JEAN LE ROND D'ALEMBERT 1717-1783 208 D’Almbert’s treatise on dynamics, written at the age of 26, included other questions of a fundamental nature, such as whether the Jaws of mechanics were necessary or contingent, And in this work he also suggested that time may be regarded as a fourth dimension. The following year, ic. in 1744, D'Alembert published another ireatise, this one on hydrostatics and hydrodynamics? Euler and Bernoulli were, let us recall, the acknowledged masters in the field of mathematical physics. There were many reasons why D'Alombert’s interest was drawn to the subject, not the least of which was the fact that he had already made a study of solid body mechanics in his frst treatise. However, when D’Alembert not only wrote another treatise on fluid mechanics but also claimed that his approach was betier than that of Bernoulli, the did not exactly win the latter’s affection.'# In 1746 the Berlin Academy proposed as the theme for its prize essay the cause of winds, D'Alembert submitted his Refiections on the General Cause of Winds, not knowing that Bernoulli was also a contestant. D’Alembert’s essay won the prize, while Bernoutli’s was not even published. The physical content of D’Atembert’s essay was not considerable. But the work reveals the attitude of the mathematical physicist in approximating nature to the extent of making a problem mathematically solvable. He noted here that “the majority of physico-mathematical questions are so complicated that it is first necessary to consider them from a general and abstract point of view, and then raisc them step by step [rom the simple to the more complex cases”. It was also in this work that he sowed the seeds of the calculus of finite differences. The germinal ideas that were to lead to partial differential equations may also be found here. Pasticipation in this contest brought D’Alembert into the acquaintance of Frederick the Great of Prussia to whom he dedicated the work in a Latin verse whose English translation reads:7° Swifter than the winds, while of the winds I write The foes of conguering Frederick speed their flight; While laurel o'er the hero’s temple bends, To the tired world the olive branch he sends. The same year D’Alembert also presented a paper on the famous three body problem, which bas attracted some of the ablest mathematical minds in history, including Euler, Clairault, Lagrange, and Laplace.?” Five years tater he published a more complete work on lunar theory which, in the opinion of Joseph Bertrand, was by itself “euBicient to make bim immortal”. Another of D'Alembert’s major work ia analytical mechanics was an essay on the procession of the equinoxes.’* After nineteen years of patient observations206 Vv. ¥. RAMAN (1728-47) J. Bradley had confirmed that the nutation of the earth's orbit was caused by the action of the moon, Lest than two years after this announcement was made, D’Alemhert gave a mathematical exposition of the phenomenon, deriving it as a consequence of Newtonian mechanics. He used his principle in attacking this problem. This is generally regarded as a major triumph of celestial mechanics. THE Wave Equation The importance of the wave equation in mathematical physics can hardly be overstated. To D’Alembert is due the credit of introducing it first into theoretical physics. The equation was derived in 1747 in an attempt to reformulate the problem of the vibrating string." A good deal of work in the field had alrady been done decades before, especially by ules and Bernoulli, But it was D’Alembert's memoir which contained for the first time the partial differential equation whieh has come to play such an important role in the development of mathematical physics. D’Alembert’s approach to the problem of the vibrating string provoked protests from the competing experts, notably Euler and Bernoulli, D'Alembert, using only the assumption that the vertical restoring force in a stretched string is proportional to the curvature and to the tension of the string. arrived ai what he beljeved to be a more gene- ral solution of the string problem than what had been obtained thus far, Bernoulli compluined that this was accomplished only because its author had stripped the problem of all physically meaningful conditions. Such a general treatment, he felt, was unacceptable. Yet, this was precisely the point. The method of mathematical physics was to describe situations with the utmost generality first, and then only to consider particular cases, as D'Alembert had stressed in his Essay on Winds, Why did D'Alembert take up this probiem at this time? There is one possible explanation for this, D'Alembert is known to have entered Parisian social life in 1746 through the salon of Madame Gcoffirin. Here topics of conversation ranged over a wide variety of subjects: intellectual, cultural, artistic, and scientific. One such topic could very well have been Jean Philippe Rameau’s opera, based on Votaire’s La Princesse de Navarre, which had been acclaimed as a great success. Now, Rameau had incurred the displeasure of music critics some twenty years earlier by his treatises on music.** But now, because of the success of the opera, he had come into the good books of the Music Academy. Rameau’s musical theories must also have been discussed in the salons.2° D'Alembert’s interest in the matter could have been aroused in these discussions, Indeed D'Atcmbert himself wrote a popular exposition of Rameau's theori HYDRODYNAMICS, D'Alembert had been interested in fluid mechanics even as early as 1740. We have already referred to his first treatise on this subject. Thus, when the Berlin AcademyJEAN LE ROND D°ALEMBERT 1717-1783 207 announced in i750 that the topic for its 1752 prize essay would be the theory of fluid resistance D’Alembert jumped at the opportunity. But his eassy did not win a prize. Nor did anybody e's The judges declared that none of the contestants deserved the prize for that year, D’Alembert was not only disappointed, bul quite angry because the Academy stated that the participants should compare their theory with expe mental results, a requirement that, in his view, had not been spelled out in the origins! statement of the problem. Instead of resubmitting the work with the suggested amendments, he published it on his own, This work, entitled 47 Eassay on a New Theory of Fitid Resistance,+ embodies a number of germinal ideas of fluid mechanics, The concept of the veiocity field tirst . The field concept, in its quantitative sense, first arose in fluid dynamics. work also contained special cases of the equation of continuity, and the condition for potential flow. In this treatise D’Alembert referred to the contributions of Bernoulli and Euler. and offered 2 justification for his own work by pointing out lo what seemed to him to be some shortcomings in Bernoulli's work. He expressed himself very tactfully by saying: “My intention here is far from underrating the work of these great men: but sciences such as these are by nature such as to be always perfected more and more, aided by the light that savants who have preceded us have shed on these obscure ques- tions: we are sometimes fortunate enough to advance a little farther than they on the toute which ihey themselves have drawn for us: and if we dare challenge them it is with the arms which they bave furnished us.” MATHEMATICS The 18th century was so much enchanted hy the successes of the techniques of the calculus that sometimes it tended to eaploit the resources of that discipline with very little concern for the religbility of its foundations, Indeed the situation was not much different from what obtained soon after Lhe formulation of quantum mechanics in the 1920's, True, there were a few philosophically inclined physicists who gruinbled at the introduction of what seemed to them to be questionable concepts. But the vast majority of the investigators built on what appeared io be a fruitful framweork. Thus, although some challenged notions like infinitesimals and limits, their objections were largely ignored. Moreover, they were generally negative critics in that while they took great delight in pointing to the conceptual difficulties of the new mathemiaties, and strongly recommended that one abandon the pursuit of the calculus, they offered no alternative answers. Euler, in his prolific outpour on practically all branches of mathematics and physics, was elated by the fine and fancy formulae which his magical pen produced in profusion, and was not always bridled by considerations of rigor and legitimacy. As A. Zygmund bas noted, “Though Newton and Leibnitz avoided divergent series, formal208 Y. ¥. RAMAN and unhibited use of the latter was bringing such mathematical rewards that the temptation was too much to withstand, and divergent series became, mostly through the work of Euler, an accepted tool of investigation”.?% D'Alembert, having himself experienced the potentialities of the calculus, was not cxactly for abandoning the subject. But he was very aware of the inherent difficulties involved in the underlying notions. If he made the famous remark, “Go abead, and you will ucquire faith’ it was not only because he knew the practical value of playing the game, but aiso because he was no less conscious of the conceptual difficulties in them. As far as infinite series were concerned D'Alemberi was quite explicit as to his views on them “As for myself,” he wrote, “I must confess that all rcasonings and calculations based on series which are not convergent or which may be supposed not to be so, ure very suspect.” Understandably he was also very particular about the notion of the limit in the vulculus, “The theory of the fimit,” he said, “is at the foundation of the real _meta- physics of the differcntial calculus. We are not dealing here, as is commonly sa with infinitesimally small quantities, rather only with the limits of finite quantities D’Alembert’s definition of limits was considered to be good enough by Cauchy during the next century when he adopted it in his classic work, “Cours D' Analyse." D’Alembert felt that more effort should be spent in developing the principles and the foundations of the calculus, than on mere details of calculations. Referring to texts written with little consideration to rigor, be noted, “careful attention is ali the more necessary because those who have explained the rules of the infinitesimal calculus have cither neglected its true principles or have presented them in an incorrect manner." At the same time he did not approve of the obscurantist rigor which, instead of clarifying, could confuse the reader. He referred, not without a touch of humor, ta “a great modern mathematician famous during his lifetime in Germany as a philosopher, wha began his elements of geometry with the theorem that 2 part is simailer than the whole, and demonstrates this with a reasoning so obscure that its eflect is to make the reader doubt the correctness of the proposition.” D’Alembert’s concern for rigor and legitimacy of reasoning, when it extended to geometry, almost prophesied the rise of non-Euclidean geometry. Granting, as his contemporaries believed, that the basic axioms of Euclidean geometry were true, he spoke of the different geometrical propositions (axioms) which their “inventors grasped ata glance, but whose proof is necessary for mathematicat rigor.”®2 The theory of parallels intrigued him considerably, and he declared very significantly: “I dare predict, and 1 am not afraid of being contradicted by those who may have reflected over this matter, that the proposition that we are presenting here, and in general the theory of parallels, is one of the most difficult points in the piraciples of geometry; | may add that this theory will be much advanced by this proof.”®*JEAN LE ROND D'ALEMBERT 1717-1783 2 Prosannity THEORY D‘Alembert’s work on probability is universally regarded as the weakest portion of his creative work. Both contemporary and later writers have attacked and ridiculed D’Alembert on this score.’ There have been exaggerations and even misrepresenia- tions of D’Alembert’s views in some of these discussions. Ironically, while D’Alembert saw the value of pursuing the calculus while stilt recognizing its dubious foundations, he was far less enthusiastic about the theary of probability. He expressed his objections to this field of mathematics for the first time in an article published in t754 in his famous Encyclopedic,’ exactly a century after Pascal's famous letter to Fermat on the Chevalier de Mere’s problem which initiated the mathematical theory of probability.** Joseph Bertrand noted that in spite of the works of Pascal, Huygens, and Jacques Bernoulli, D’Alembert refused to repard the calculus of probability as a legitimate branch of mathematics.*? There is an implication of some sort of irrational obstinacy on the part of D’Alembert. Yet if is equally true that in spite of the works of Bohr, Born, and Heisenberg, Einstein refused to regard the probabilistic interpretation of the psi-function as a legitimate deserip- tion of the microcosm. The point to remember is that D’Alembert, like Einstein, wan obsessed with the logical foundations of the theory, as indeed he was with those of ihe caleulus also. Ht was not even true that he refused to accept the theory. Indeed he stated, ~ wish only that the calculus of probability be clarified and modified." And if he enter- tained certain doubts on it, it was only because he felt that “the theory of probability. such as it is presenied in the books that deal with it, is on many questions neither as enlightening nor as complete as one might imagine. That the basic premises of probability theory did require further clarification is amply vindicated by the subsequent history of the subject. Indeed D'Alembert was perhaps the first mathematician of any repute to examine the whole subject from an epistemological point of view. Although in some of his contentions and consequent calculations he did err, there is some truth in Condorcet’s declaration: “. If this calculus (of probability) stands one day on firmer footing we shall be indebted to D'Alembert for it.4° PutLosuPHy OF SCILNCL D’Alembert’s intellectual activities were not confined to attacking technical problems in mathematics. His field of interest and the themes of his writings embraced a Whole panorama of cultural creativity, from music and the arts to poctry and philo- sophy. Inspired by Francis Bacon whom he regarded as “ihe greatest, the most universal, and the most eloquent of philosophers,” he sought constantly to correlaie210 V. ¥. RAMAN theory with observation and experiment. In many of his scientific writings D’Alembert referred to and insisted upon the importance of correlating theory with experience. Thus, for example, while speaking of hydrostatics he noted, “Experience alone has been able to teach us the details of the laws of hydrostatics, which the subtlest of theories could never have cnabled us to suspect. .“**' Similarty, in his work on the precession of the equinoxes he wrote,“*. . of the different assumptions that we may make 10 explain this effect, only those which by their nature furnish us with unmistakable ways of assuring us of their correctness are worthy of our attention,'"82 Instead of saying as bluntly as Laplace was to say a century later that he did not need the hypothesis of a deity, D'Alembert suggested in his Treatise on Dynamics that “the nature of the Supreme Being is too hidden for us to know directly what is or is not in conformity with His wisdom, and we can only perceive the effects of that wisdom in our observations of the laws of nuture when mathematical reasoning reveals to us the simplicity of these Jaws, and experiments shows us their applications and range." We must remember that it was unusual for eminent scientists of the Period not to make references to the Almighty. In D’Alembert’s view the ultimate aim of science was the development of satis- factory theories to explain facts of observation. However, he also recognized clearly the possibility that entirely different hypotheses could equally well serve in the adequate explanation of a given phenomenon. As Hermann Weyl pointed out “in this recognition of the ‘ambiguity of truth’. Hobbes and D’Alembert preceded the modern positivists.”** D'Alembert was completely against the blind appiication of mathematical techniques in the description of the physical world without any regard to its nature, @ practice in which some theorists have often indulged. While fully emphasizing the importance of mathematics in physics he ulso noted, “It must be admitted, however, that mathematicians sometimes abuse this application of algebra to physics, In the absence of proper experiments to serve as a basis for their calculations they allow them- selves the most convenient hypotheses to suit their needs, but which ate often quite distant from what is found in nature.”# As to the aims and potentialities of physics D’Alenbert foresaw the dreams of the current struggles at unified field theories when he wrote: “The universe, if we may be permitted to say, would only be one fact and one great truth for whoever knew how to embrace it from a single point of view. #6 At the same time D'Alembert was very particular in recognizing the limits and domains of the physico-mathematical methodology. It has always been a favorite Sport among some scientists and philosophers to prove through scientific results and reasonings religious beliefs and theological doctrines. Whether this is done to please the public or out of genuine conviction, such attempts usually lead to confusionsJEAN LE ROND D’ALEMBERT 1717-1783 2 and contradictions, These arise because one loses sight of distinctions between faith and reason, As a result of which, said D’Alembert, ‘on the one hand some great geniuses haye been sorely mistaken, and on the other hand, the defenders of religion have sometimes imagined too easily that it is being attacked."97 D'Alembert himself publicly declared that there was ample proof for the existence of God. However, in some of his private correspondence he tended towards an atheistic materialism. It is nol uncommon to see, even in our times, the tendency of intellectuals with only a marginat acquaintance with or training in the sciences, trying ta use a scientific framework in propagating ideas that have intrinsically nothing to do with science. In the 18th century, for example, Rameau attempted a pseudo-scientific explanation for everything from geometry and the duality of the sexes to the Trinity. D’Alembert, not always moderate in his words of criticism, deplored this ‘furious mania’, and rebuked those who indulged in such practices whose purpose. he said, was simply to impress the ignorant. CONCLUDING REMARKS We have surveyed very briefly some of the positive contributions of D'Alembert to physics and mathematics. D’Alembert was one of the keenest intellects of the 18th century. Works on a variety of themes: cultural history, the philosophy of the Enlightenment, the history of music, the history of ideas, the mainsprings of the French Revolution, all have to include his name. Above all else, he was a physicist and mathematician, D'Alembert is also one of the few eminent scientists of any period whose reputation has suffered significantly in the writings of historians of science. Indeed the general trend in histories of science has been to give the impression that D’Alembert was always the erring, confused savant who, by his incessant polemics and obscurantism, brought little light to the problems discussed, while Euler was invariably the clear headed thinker par excellence.** D’Alembert was certainly net flawless, but his flaws have received more than decent exaggerations in the writings of some historians. While the commendable work of Pappas** removed many of the misconceptions as to the docile character of D’Alembert, and the scholarly biography by Grimsley® anafyzes his philosophical contributions in detail, there seems to be no adequate account in English of D’Alembert, the scientist. On the other hand his rivals Euler and Bernoulli have received well deserved recognition from enthusiastic scholars. D'Alembert was not meticulous in the details of bis calculations where he often let simple errors slip in. Much has been made of this unfortunate trait of his, But it is well to remember that errors in arithmetic and algebra are not as serious as errors in analysis or in the elucidation of principles, Considering the range and volume of his212 ve RAMAN writings, it is understandable that he did not pay the most scrupulous attention to everything that he sent for publication. Anyone who undertakes to head a project such as the Encyclopédie should be given some margin for possible misstatements. and even factual blunders, especially when he says quite frankly at the outset ‘..we declare without hesitation, in the name of our colleagues and our own, that we will always be disposed to confess our inadequacies amd lo profit by the enlightenment communicated 10 us.” Whatever the view of soine of his rival contemporaries, and even of tater scholars, inany creative mathematicians and physicists, from Lagrange and Laplace to Louis de Broglie and Hermuan Weyl have spoken of D’Alembert’s scientific achievernents only with (he utmost respect. His in such a spirit that we remember him on the 200th anniversary of his death. Noves AND REFERENCES Mascal B.,“.e ner de Cléopatre: si ext €€ plus court, toute It Face de la (ere aurait chanse asées, Bi, *Whitchead, A. N. "Science and the Modern World.” NY. (1925) p. 08 aHacon, Roger “Opus majus.” opus tertiam, U Penn Press (1928) p. 29. ‘Log! Kelvin’s desenption of Fourier Series. E. T. Bell, Mew of Mathematics, London (195? ed.) p27. *Euler's student and autnires N. Fuss on the one hand, and D'Alernbert’s proiégé Condorcet on the othee were the two major representatives of these views in the 18th century, 2s revealed in ihe Eloges of their herves. SScc, in this context, (he recent Publication of H. Guerlac, Newéon on the Continent. Ithaca (1983) *D'Alembert’s mother was calied Claudine Atexendrine de Tencin, and she held a salon at her home, [Cwas in this comtext that she mat the cavalier officer Destouches-Canon and bore the mathematician. "Analyse Démontrée by Father Charles Revnau discussed the mathematics of Descartes, L and the Bernoullis, It was in the 1736 reprint of this work that D*Alembert detecied the error ‘Hertrand, Joseph, D'Alembert, Paris (1889) p. 2. ‘A modern edition of this and other treatises By D’Alembert has been issued ty Editions Culture et Civilization, Bruxelles, “André Fontaine, another £8th century mathematician claimed that he had known an equivalent of D'Alember'’s principle years before the pablication of D’Alembert’s work. This caused contro- versies. Collected Works, A. Fantain ed. Paris (1764), MSce, in this context, V. V, Raman, “The Second Law of Motion and Newton's Equations” Thr Teacher, March 1972, p. 136. de Nequiliber et du mouvement des fluides.”* Ref. 10, Min various letters to Euler, Bernoulli expressed his anger and contempt for D'Alembert because of the publication of this work. The full title of the subject was: “Determiner Fordre ct ta foi que Je vent devrcit suivre sila terre é10it cnvironnée de cous cars par Focéan, de sorte qu‘an put en tous temps trouver 1a ulrection et la vitesse du vent pour chaque endroit.” This was an early attempt at theoretical weather forecasting, Hace exo de ventis dum ventarum acyor alis Palantes agit Austriacos Fredericus. et orbi Insignis Tauro ramum practendit olivae. vemidthode générale pour daterminer tes orbites et les mouvernents de toutes les planétes, ou egar! a leur action mutvaile.” This was, in fact, a generalization of the turee body problem, D’Alemberi Prescnied this memoir, as a surprisc. on the very day in which Clairault presented his, on the same subject. to the Académie, an act that won him Clairault's immense displeseure ‘wD Alembert’s work on funar theory, though completed in 1751, was published only in 1754, The riz,JEAN LE ROND D’ALCMBERT 1717-1783 23 works of Clairauit, Euler, and of D'Alembert on lunar theory, a subject that had been considered by many before. were revolutionary in that thelr approach {6 the Problem was anulytical rather than geometrical. \w’Recherches sur ia petvession des equinones et sur la mutation de ane de In terre," was published in 1749, “Recherches sur ta courbe que forme une corde tenduc mise en vibralion,” Hist. de f Acad. de Berlin, 3, 1747, pp. 244-219, and 220-49. 2Traité de Pharmonie reduite A ses Drincipes naturels.” A thesis put forward by Rameau was that in any musical composition there is always a fundamental base from which may be derived all the higher chords in ft, and that every chord in it follows from the harmonic serics of partial tones. *Marmontel, J. F., Oeuvres Complites. Paris (1819), p. 300, ss" Elééns de musique théorique et pratique suivant les principes de M. Rameau.” ““Fesai d'une nouvelle théorie de Ta resistance Ges Mluices” is a classic in the history of scicnoe. Rprerlovedia Britannica, (1966) 20, 0, 366. “Allez on avant, ia foi vous viendra,”” quoted in Ref. 9, p. 57. “Pour moi, j'avoue gue tous raisonnentents et Tes caleuls fondés sur des s€ries qui ne cont pas convergentes ou qu'on peut supposer ne pos Vétre, me paraitront toujours tres suspects." Op. Math, Vol, 5 (1768) p. 183, Ca théoris de la limite cst la base de la veaio mathtmatique du cal cul differeniiel, I ne n’agit Doint, comme on te dit ordinairement, Ges quantités infiniment petites; i] s‘agit wniquement ex limites des quantités finies.” Article on “Limite” in the Encyclopedic. *knopn, K., Theor? and Application of infinite Series, N. ¥.(1049), D. 489. 2Co soin est P'autant plus necessaine. que la plupart de ccux qui ont expliqué les régics du calcul de infin, ow en ont négiigé les vrais principes, ou les ont presentés d'une maniére trés fausse.’” Elem, de phil. géom. p. 275. 3, un grand mathématicien moderne, oélébre de son vivant en Allemagne comme philasophe, commence ses déments de géometrie nat cx (héoréme, que la rartie est plus petite que ke lout. et Je prouve par un raisonnement si abscur, qu'il ne tendrait au lecieur den Gouter™. iid. p. 276. 3". .que les inventeurs ont apercues comme un coup d'oeil, mais dont la démanstration esi ndcessaire on rigueur mathématique.” ibid. p. 269. " = Jrose avancer, et je ne craint point d'etre contred:t par ceux gui y réflechizont, que la proposition Gue nous présentons & démontrer ici, et en générale, la théorie des paraliéles, est un des points les Plus difficiles dans les lémens de géomeirig; et j/ajoute que cette théorie serant bien avancée par cetie démonstration.” ibid. p. 279. “Por a systematic criticism of D'Alembert’s ercors in Probability Theory see, Histury: of ske Theory of Probability, N_Y. 41968 ed.) Ch. on D'Alembert Originally inspired by Chamber's Cyclopedia, this work finally came under the editorship of Denis Diderot and D’Alembort. The first of its 28 volumes eppeared in 1751 with D*Alembert’s famous “Discours Préliminaire’ (Preliminary Discourse), a fine essay that embodies the sciemtific irit (praising Bacon, Newton and Locke), profound insights, and liberal thought, aJl in excellent French. As is well-known it was while trying (0 solve a problem in a game of chanoe that the bi ciples of probability theory were hist stated. However, the problem itself had been earlier in the works of Cardan, Tartaglia, etc. Hop. cit. 9, P. 49. 4"Ie désire seuloment qu'il {ie calcul des probabilités) soit éclairci et modifié.” D'Alemibert, Opuscules, IV, p. 297. La théarie des probabiliés, telle qu'elle est presentée dans tes livres qui en traitent, nest sur bien es paints, ni aussi fumineuse, ni ausei complete qu'on pourtait le croire.”’ ibid. p. 451. “Eloges, ibid. Vol. 1, p. xX. . . . «1 Lexpérience seule a pu nous construire en détail les lois de Mhydrostatique, auc fa théorie fa plus ubtile n’aurait jamais pu nous faire, soupconner,....” Eltiments de philosophie, p. 331. 2". parmi les différentes suppositions que nous pouvons imaginer peur expliquer un effet, celles qui par leur nature nous fournissent les moyens infaillibles de nous assurer si elles sent vraies, sont les scules dignes de nos examens."' Pree. des equi, Op.. P. 337. ; ‘fa nature de PEtre supréme nous est trop cachée paur que nous fuissions connafire direclement ‘ce qui esi ow n'est pas conforme aux vues de sa sagesse, naus pouvans seulement entrevoir les effets de cette sagesse dans lobservations des lois de ta nature, lorsque le raisonnement_ mathé- matique fait voir la simplicite de ces lois, et que l'expérience nous en dura montré les applications et 'etendue.” Traite de Dyn., 9. 404, “Weyl, Hermann, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science, Princeton (1949) p_ 153. ‘*]) faut avouer Pourtarit que les géometres abusent que'quefois de cette application de |’alpSbre @ Ia physique. Au defaut d’exnériences propres a servir de base a leur calcul, il se permettent des ‘hypotheses les plus commodes a fa. vérité qu'il leur cst possible; mais souvent trés cloignécs dle gui ex eleleent dans fa nature.” Discours, pret. 29, ibid. p. 30, ie prin= iscussedVv. RAMAN 214 .d’un coré quelques grands génies sont tombés dans erreur, de Pautre des defenseurs Ge 1a religion ont quelquefois supposé trop légérement qu’on lui portait attenite.” ibid. p. 33. ‘1{n recent years the weitings of the eminent scholar C. Truesdell have denigrated Ty*Alembert in the most erudite manner possible. See, in particular his estimates of D'Alembert in the collected works of Euler, edited by him. eg. Vol XII {seg. Ser). His assessment of D'Alembert’s work: “One searches for the tittle solid matter, 25 @ sparrow pecks out a few nutritious seeds from a dungheap—a task not akogeiher savory.” *sPanpas, J. N., Voltaire and D’ Alember?, Bloomingion (1982), Grimsley, Ronald, Jean d'Alembert, Oxford, 1963,